This is a false blanket statement. Also one that could change as we start to see human+ai performance be better than just human performance.
For lung cancer screening, NLST showed a 20% reduction in mortality and now NELSON has shown even stronger results in Europe.
This “all screening is bad” is FUD in the medical field, frankly. Yes it has to be studied and implemented carefully, but to make blanket statements about screening as a whole is factually incorrect.
Broad-based population screenings as the parent comment suggests, in my opinion, are.
I'm yet to see any clinically-valid distinguishing aspects that would suggest AI would add value to screening. Curious to hear evidence that drives your optimism of human+AI.
Just to state, the NELSON study [1] focuses on high-risk segments. Their paper also recommends a "personalized risk-based approach" to screening. This seems reasonable.
The general thread here is about AI helping with a more proactive approach to medicine. Screening for high risk populations certainly falls under that.
You certainly said that screening leads to over diagnosis.
I think for screening, the best results are probably the upcoming prospective study from Kheiron.
will show stronger performance. But Kheiron appears to be ahead as far as proving the value of the tool since they have actually validated prospectively.
For lung cancer screening, NLST showed a 20% reduction in mortality and now NELSON has shown even stronger results in Europe.
This “all screening is bad” is FUD in the medical field, frankly. Yes it has to be studied and implemented carefully, but to make blanket statements about screening as a whole is factually incorrect.